Plan B Forum

Jason Hanna and Joe Riggs are the proud fathers of Lucas and Ethan, who were born in April, after they'd connected with a surrogate mom, CharLynn.

Each of the men is a biological father to one of the babies. But, because Texas has a ban on gay marriage (it was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge last February, but the decision was stayed pending appeal), and because a judge can use his or her own discretion in these cases, neither of the men is currently on the birth certificates of either of the boys, nor have they been able to co-adopt each other’s biological child.

Only the surrogate mother — who has no biological relationship to the boys, since embryos were transferred to her — is on the birth certificates. In essence, the men are not legally defined as the parents of their own children. And though they have DNA tests for proof, they’re worried, particularly if something were to happen to one of them while the other still has not been able to co-adopt the other’s biological child.

“As of right now in Texas two men cannot be on the birth certificate,” Jason Hanna explained in an interview with me on SiriusXM Progress. “So our attorney followed the letter of the law. We petitioned the court. We had DNA testing there [in court] and petitioned the judge to ultimately remove the surrogate mother from the birth certificate, who has no biological ties to the boys. We would like each biological dad to be placed on the birth certificate of our own son, and then ultimately proceed to the second-parent adoption. The entire petition was denied.”

Jason Hanna and Joe Riggs met four years ago and knew they wanted to be together and raise children, so they saved their money, knowing it would be a costly process. They married last July in Washington DC, where gay marriage is legal, and then went back to Dallas to celebrate their wedding with family and friends in August. They found a surrogate mom, and this past April the twins were born.

“We were sworn in and ultimately the judge was saying that with the information she had in front of her, under Texas law she couldn’t grant it,” Riggs said of their appearance in court last week. “I was shocked. We had a ton of questions as we walked away from that courtroom.”

It was particularly jarring to Hanna and Riggs because other gay couples in Texas, including friends of theirs, have successfully completed this process. The couple’s lawyer has offered them several options on bringing the petition back, changing the paperwork and the process. But there’s no question that if their marriage was legally recognized they would not be having this problem at all.

TPFKA@W wrote:Got an email addy? I am in the mood to write something nasty to someone about this.

TPFKA@W wrote:the judge is just being a bitch

Scooter wrote:The judge may have been able to piece together some sort of legal justification for refusing the reciprocal adoptions. But there can be no earthly reason to refuse naming the children's respective biological fathers on their birth certificates, when they had DNA results in hand. That can only be attributed to pure vindictiveness, a case of a judge making things difficult because she can.

Scooter wrote:The judge may have been able to piece together some sort of legal justification for refusing the reciprocal adoptions. But there can be no earthly reason to refuse naming the children's respective biological fathers on their birth certificates, when they had DNA results in hand. That can only be attributed to pure vindictiveness, a case of a judge making things difficult because she can.

Sec. 160.754. GESTATIONAL AGREEMENT AUTHORIZED. (a) A prospective gestational mother, her husband if she is married, each donor, and each intended parent may enter into a written agreement providing that:
(1) the prospective gestational mother agrees to pregnancy by means of assisted reproduction;
(2) the prospective gestational mother, her husband if she is married, and each donor other than the intended parents, if applicable, relinquish all parental rights and duties with respect to a child conceived through assisted reproduction;
(3) the intended parents will be the parents of the child; and
(4) the gestational mother and each intended parent agree to exchange throughout the period covered by the agreement all relevant information regarding the health of the gestational mother and each intended parent.
(b) The intended parents must be married to each other. Each intended parent must be a party to the gestational agreement.
(c) The gestational agreement must require that the eggs used in the assisted reproduction procedure be retrieved from an intended parent or a donor. The gestational mother's eggs may not be used in the assisted reproduction procedure.
(d) The gestational agreement must state that the physician who will perform the assisted reproduction procedure as provided by the agreement has informed the parties to the agreement of:
(1) the rate of successful conceptions and births attributable to the procedure, including the most recent published outcome statistics of the procedure at the facility at which it will be performed;
(2) the potential for and risks associated with the implantation of multiple embryos and consequent multiple births resulting from the procedure;
(3) the nature of and expenses related to the procedure;
(4) the health risks associated with, as applicable, fertility drugs used in the procedure, egg retrieval procedures, and egg or embryo transfer procedures; and
(5) reasonably foreseeable psychological effects resulting from the procedure.
(e) The parties to a gestational agreement must enter into the agreement before the 14th day preceding the date the transfer of eggs, sperm, or embryos to the gestational mother occurs for the purpose of conception or implantation.
(f) A gestational agreement does not apply to the birth of a child conceived by means of sexual intercourse.
(g) A gestational agreement may not limit the right of the gestational mother to make decisions to safeguard her health or the health of an embryo.

Sec. 160.701. SCOPE OF SUBCHAPTER. This subchapter applies only to a child conceived by means of assisted reproduction.

Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 821, Sec. 1.01, eff. June 14, 2001.


Sec. 160.702. PARENTAL STATUS OF DONOR. A donor is not a parent of a child conceived by means of assisted reproduction.

Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 821, Sec. 1.01, eff. June 14, 2001.


Sec. 160.703. HUSBAND'S PATERNITY OF CHILD OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTION. If a husband provides sperm for or consents to assisted reproduction by his wife as provided by Section 160.704, he is the father of a resulting child.

Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 821, Sec. 1.01, eff. June 14, 2001.


Sec. 160.7031. UNMARRIED MAN'S PATERNITY OF CHILD OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTION. (a) If an unmarried man, with the intent to be the father of a resulting child, provides sperm to a licensed physician and consents to the use of that sperm for assisted reproduction by an unmarried woman, he is the father of a resulting child.
(b) Consent by an unmarried man who intends to be the father of a resulting child in accordance with this section must be in a record signed by the man and the unmarried woman and kept by a licensed physician.

Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 972 (S.B. 228), Sec. 40, eff. September 1, 2007.

Scooter wrote:Even if the surrogacy provisions of the agreement between them were voided because the intended parents were not married,

They married last July in Washington DC, where gay marriage is legal, and then went back to Dallas

Big RR wrote:surrogacy and assisted reproduction are two different things; assisted reproduction involves the use of technology to conceive a child and place it within the uterus of the mother (things like IVF), surrogacy involves bringing another party (the surrogate who carries the child) into the equation, which makes it something very different. The surrogacy law you quoted does not have the language of intent of the father.

Gob wrote:Who, gay or straight, would want to bring up a child in Texas?

Gob wrote:Who, gay or straight, would want to bring up a child in Texas?

Kisha Young, 39, of Crowley, Texas was arrested after having the children - four of which were hers and two of which were a friend's - ride on the roof and the trunk of her Chevy Malibu for the short ride back home after swimming at the local pool, reports CBS DFW.

Witnesses in the neighborhood were astonished to see Young driving with the kids - ages eight to 14 - on the outside of the vehicle, and were even more shocked when four of the children were flung from the car after Young took a sharp turn. As the children laid injured in the street, Young kept on driving, apparently unaware that the kids had fallen off the vehicle